Kay Hymowitz at the Manhattan Journal weighs in on SSM. She agrees with many of us that the key issue is whether or not marriage has any connection to procreation/childrearing. She concedes that recent trends have tended to separate them but sees this as a decline to be deplored and reversed rather than furthered. She reflects extensively on the meaning of republican marriage, as understood by the Founders. This is the most interesting part. Were I, alas, a member of the vanished leisure classes I would certainly parse some time away from the poetry and polo-playing to learn from the Founders how political self-government is only possible if the law of God is written in the heart, and how marriage is where politics and God’s law are conjoined, as an institution recieving both the sanction of religion and of the state, and as the means by which the young are brought up to do their civic duty and acknowledge the hand of the Lord in all things. In my opinion, no one coming from a good home is entirely lost to us.
Beware the dithering and the gratuitous New Yorker swipe at big families.
Material from Last Week:
The first attempt at a Federal Marriage Amendment failed. State marriage amendments continue to succeed. Seventy-one percent of Missourians just amended their own constitution to affirm “”That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.” Missourians’ passion for protecting marriage was enough to overcome their inner stylists.
Stanley Kurtz has a long article full of juicy links evaluating the the chances for future attempts at a Federal Marriage Amendment. He thinks they’re high. If due process or equal protection claims start working their way through the courts, voters will respond, he argues. And
Although the analogy is seriously flawed, gay-marriage advocates see this issue as one of fundamental civil rights. They cannot and will not hold back from moving gay marriage through the courts. Once faced with the issue, liberal judges recoil in horror from the prospect of going down in history as an opponent of civil rights. So despite the political risks of pressing forward, the process moves on of its own ineluctable weight. This is truly a case where an irresistible force is hurtling swiftly toward an immovable object. And when the clash comes, the political calculations in this dispute are going to change.
Eve Tushnet reviews Rauch’s book touting SSM as good for marriage.